fireemblemfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:TearRing Saga on this wiki
Me and Otherarrow have already discussed this at great length. I believe that most (everything except the pages on the actual games and one on the series) TearRing saga pages and there templates should be moved off this wiki onto an actual TearRing Saga wiki. This is because they keep up cropping into the wanted pages or the lonely pages or if I click random page i find myself staring a random TearRing Saga character aswell as other annoyances. Otherarrow disagrees, saying that the TearRing Saga pages aren't affecting us that much and that the TearRing Saga Wiki woudn't get any edits, so those pages will be worse off. Long story short, rather than start an edit war we've decided to put it up to a community decision, to vote please sign with --~~~~ and please, if you have any relevant points, want to leave a reason, or have other suggestions please feel free to add them to the comments section. --Semajdraehs- any replies to my Talk page 10:51, November 22, 2009 (UTC) In case of the unlikely chance that users would resort to sockpuppeting, which I am accusing no one of doing but it may happen in the future, I will remove and not count any votes from IP users, like with the featured article voting. No offense intended, if you so choose you can register and vote legitimately.--Otherarrow 23:05, April 4, 2010 (UTC) A few things to clarify first: *Your account will still work on the other wiki since it will also be a wikia wiki. *There will be effort in transfering images and changing some structure, but the actual content will transfer easily dure to some Wikia tools. *The TearRing Saga Wiki will not be completely abandoned when moved, I'm sure me and Otherarrow will make every effort to maintain it while a community is being set up. Votes for keeping TearRing Saga pages Yeah. Keep. The pages do need some work, but I don't think moving them to another wiki will do anything about that. As for all the people who insist it should go because it "isn't Fire Emblem", well, Nintendo did not think that it seems. And, no offense to TRS fans, but I kinda see what they were getting at. As noted here and below, it is a continuation in eyes of the creator of both series, similar enough for Nintendo to attempt multiple lawsuits, and obscure enough (at least as far as I can tell, again no offense) that only FE fans really know about it anyway.--Otherarrow 13:38, November 22, 2009 (UTC); edited on 22:18, December 2, 2009 (UTC). Keep. Tear Ring Saga is so Fire Emblem it fits. They even have a character named Barts. Emperor Hardin 20:19, November 22, 2009 (UTC) Keep. Nobody will work on a TearRing Saga Wiki. It's also the continuation of the Fire Emblem saga in the eyes of Shouzou Kaga, who created the series. They even have Pegasus Knights and were going to include Mamkutes (they're still there, but renamed)! As for TRS articles appearing on the Wanted lists and whatnot, I'd just consider them like the unpopular FE: Gaiden articles. Aveyn Knight 20:57, November 23, 2009 (UTC) I believe that the TearRing Saga pages here are, quite honestly, the bare minimum for even a related game >.>. TearRing Saga is very much like FE, it's more like FE than even some games in the series (arguably). They're close enough for copy-write infringement, they're close enough for this wiki to keep them. [[User:Cloudofdarkness|'Cloudofdarkness']] [[User Talk: Cloudofdarkness|'was']] [[http://irc.wikia.com/gaming/ | here]] 02:25, December 14, 2009 (UTC) I say keep them. The page for the Berwick saga, an entire game, is just one sentence, summed up to that "it's the sequel". I hardly think that, along with other one-sentence pages for the characters constitutes a new Wiki entirely. --Wyvern Lord 03:04, January 7, 2010 (UTC) Let's keep 'em. They are not going to do good on their own wiki, and they are based on Fire Emblem. We might as well leave them here. I like to think of them as something like the Advance Wars article.--Black Dragon Laguz 18:26, July 4, 2010 (UTC) it was created by the maker of fire emblem to be like fire emblem. it should be kept.-Sophius I vote for keeping it here. After all, the creator of Fire Emblem made this game in the mirror image of the several Fire Emblem games he worked on. Besides, if it was given its own wiki, no one would work on it... --'--Charged151 -' 22:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC) I have voted to keep the TearRing Saga related pages on this Wiki. Shouzou Kaga, the creator of the Fire Emblem series, made the TearRing Saga games and these series are similar. The TearRing Saga only has two installments. If TearRing Saga has its own wiki, that wiki will be a ghost town. Tedius Zanarukando 22:40, April 20, 2010 (UTC) Keep. While I'm not too sure about the series myself, it seems like the TRS articles have some potential for being expanded on by the people who've actually played the game(s). There are strong parallels between the two series as well, and I believe that (probably) no one would edit the articles any further if they were taken off this wiki. --Almanac 05:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Votes for moving TearRing Saga pages to a new wiki I've already stated my reasons above--Semajdraehs- any replies to my Talk page 12:13, November 22, 2009 (UTC) --Cmolisa0 02:56, December 1, 2009 (UTC) --This is the Fire Emblem wikia, not the Tear ring saga wikia. Even if no one would work on a tear ring saga wikia, they should at least be relocated elsewhere (to the nintendo Wikia perhaps?). 14:02, December 1, 2009 (UTC) --TearRing isn't Fire Emblem; it's TearRing. It may be the spiritual successor to Fire Emblem, but it is not Fire Emblem, and therefore in my opinion it doesn't belong here. Whether a TearRing wikia would be developed or not seems irrelevant to me. Silavor 09:00, January 30, 2010 (UTC) --Unless it says clearly (which it doesn't) that it is part of the Fire Emblem series, it shouldn't be here, whether people would work on it has nothing to do with it. Ej8012 20:13, March 22, 2010 (UTC) --I agree with Ej8012, this articles shouldn't be here as they're from topics apart of Fire Emblem. The Tear Ring saga is more BASSED ON Fire Emblem than a real part of the franchise. Also, the game's only in Japan, making it dificult to get in America and so, almost useless. Another thing I cossider important is that Fire Emblem Games are from and for Nintendo, and the Tear Ring saga's for PS2. I also cosider from a very bad taste that some people desided to create all those articles without even asking about permission or opinions. It's not like creating an article about a chapter or an item, it's a whole wikia appart. Silver-Haired Hero 19:19, April 20, 2010 (UTC) --I think the TearRing pages should be moved to their own wikia. We could then add to this wikia a page about TearRing that sums up the whole series, how the series compares/contrasts to Fire Emblem, etc., similar to the Final Fantasy wikia's page on Kingdom Hearts. --ZD, 14:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC) --Nothing against TRS; it's just that it isn't the same series as Fire Emblem. It should stand alone, despite that the creator is the same person. Tear Ring does not have the same batch of characters, continents, or even cultural relevance as Fire Emblem. Play Smash Bros. with your friends and ask them, "Know what Fire Emblem is?" They will go, "Uh, that game with Marth, Roy and Ike?" If you ask them what TRS is, they will go "Ummm..." TRS does not really associate to FE in most peoples' minds, and so it should receive its own page. Hopefully this will create more publicity/awareness for the series, as well. - June 8, 2010 Comments FYI the TRS info would not go on the Nintendo Wiki. Also, I would take this comment to speak against people on either side just voting without commenting. I personally think that doesn't help us here.--Otherarrow 21:47, December 1, 2009 (UTC) Okay then. I've never heard of TearRing Saga, nor do I really care that much about it. Sure, it may be created by the same man who created Fire Emblem, but I wouldn't dedicate pages about Zelda on a Mario wiki just because they were both created by Mr. Miyamoto. Personally, I think these TRS pages will simply clutter up an already disorganized and polluted wiki. Whether or not an independent TRS wiki would be worked on is irrelevant. Those pages don't belong here. --Cmolisa0 18:04, December 4, 2009 (UTC) :Disorganized, maybe, but I wouldn't say it, but polluted? I don't quite get what you mean. (Have I been letting spam run unchecked or something?) Also, it does not look like "Oh they were created by the same guy" but more like "Oh, they were both created by the same guy, and one seems to be a continuation or successor to the other, but isn't due to copyright reasons, but is close enough so that the company that owns the first one tried to sue" Last I checked, Zelda is not known for being any bit Mario-esque, or being considered a continuation in the eyes of Mr. Miyamoto. :EDIT: Also, I'd say at least one of the reasons they "clutter up" the wiki any more so than say the Gaiden articles (about as unpopular, about as incomplete) is because of Semaj's insistence that the TRS info be completely segregated from the rest of the wiki, right down to arguably redundant categories and templates. I know he means well, and in fact I supported him at first, but now I think that it is making it more of a problem than it is already.--Otherarrow 22:28, December 4, 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, I don't think that really changes my opinion on the matter, sorry. I think that this place has too many articles with too little content, and adding more pages, some for games, and more for weapons, chapters, characters, ect... will just add to the pile. I have a feeling these articles will be of little interest to the average Fire Emblem player and will add very little to the community. Gaiden is Fire Emblem. TRS is not Fire Emblem. --Cmolisa0 05:28, December 5, 2009 (UTC) These pages are fine on this wiki, in my oppinion. They just need some cleanup, that's all. They are allright, because they are based on Fire Emblem, and are noteworthy for that. We aren't keeping them because they were created by the same person(that's why we wouldn't talk about The Legend of Zelda series on the Mario wiki).--Black Dragon Laguz 18:21, July 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree with some of Cmolisa's comments. I.e: They are not Fire Emblem. I remember I had raised this issue a few months ago on a discussion page. Whether Kaga-san felt it was a continuation or not is (with all due respect) generally irrelevant. Although I have never played TRS (this fact may discredit my opinion more or less) I feel they do not belong here. I also agree with Cmolisa's comment about having enough stubs as it is. My vote is still against keeping them. 20:13, December 8, 2009 (UTC)